|
|
| «Latest ‹Forward News item: 233 Back› Oldest» |
| U.S. cellphone researcher: `There's so much money involved, that the only thing industry sees is the money.' | |
| USA | Created: 14 Aug 2005 |
|
Dr Jerry Phillips US cellphone researcher: Early data for a study he conducted with colleague Narendrah Singh in the early 1990s found DNA damage in rat brain cells exposed to microwave signals considered safe by government standards. In an internal memo that has since been made public, a Motorola executive strategized on how to put a "damper on speculation arising from this research." "I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue," the memo reads. Norm Sandler, a senior Motorola communications executive and author of the memo, said it was written to prepare company executives for public reaction to the study. "I think we were doing what we needed to do in terms of due diligence, informing our people the research was coming out and our take on it," he said in an interview. Independent studies showing biological effects, or hinting at possible health effects, have faced a similar barrage of industry criticism. uch studies are typically dismissed as anomalies among an "overwhelming" body of evidence showing no health risks. "One of the most irrational approaches I see industry taking is trying to use studies on both sides to cancel one another out," says Phillips. "You don't cancel, you don't weigh. What you do is evaluate carefully." He says industry arguments may be simple, but they're effective when talking to a public ill-equipped to challenge the information. Replication of research is another problem. A study that comes out with a new finding generally does not have much credibility in the scientific community unless another research lab has been able to replicate the work and the findings. When Dr. Leif Salford, a neurosurgeon in Sweden, published a study in 2003 showing that rat brain neurons were dying from exposure to cellphone radiation, he warned there might be similar effects in humans that over time could lead to degenerative diseases of the brain. His study was written off by the industry as a "novel" finding that needed to be replicated. But achieving the scientific standard of replication can be complicated. Salford says if studies aren't absolutely replicated, providing an apples-to-apples comparison, there's wiggle room to dispute follow-up findings. "We are very, very convinced that what we see is true. But the other guys who have tried to do the same thing have not got their papers published," said Salford. "As long as people have major problems in doing these studies, it's a situation where the industry can continue to say there's no scientific evidence." Industry's dismissal of controversial findings strikes at the heart of scientific credibility, says Dr. Martin Blank, associate professor of cellular biophysics at Columbia University. He's also the former president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, a highly regarded organization of scientists devoted to the "independent" study of electromagnetic fields. "These guys are naysayers from the word go," says Blank, who last year called for an investigation into "conflicts of interest" within the society that is now under way. "Everybody tries to influence everybody else. This is reasonable. But there are certain things that go beyond the pale." Blank says the society's own newsletter, now funded by Motorola and edited by Swicord, is showing "clear instances of bias" against research that shows effects from radio frequencies. Swicord responded publicly to Blank's accusation in the society's newsletter, saying that while perceptions of bias need to be taken seriously, there's no "credible evidence" that cellphone signals cause adverse health effects. "Most of the results in the literature show no effects," wrote Swicord. "From a public health perspective when do we say enough is enough?" Dr. Om Gandhi, a Utah-based scientist who has been studying cellphone frequencies since 1973, says there remain plenty of unanswered questions. In his own attempts, he says he's felt the sting of industry retribution. His research, showing that cellphone frequencies penetrate much deeper into the heads of children, triggered a backlash that he says has left him without research funding and the subject of mudslinging at industry-dominated meetings. "I have been marginalized for the last three years because I would not back down from what I was publishing," he says. "It's very nasty." |
|
|
|
|
| Source: Dr. Jerry Phillips. U.S. cellphone researcher: | |
| «Latest ‹Forward News item: 233 Back› Oldest» |